It turns out that the heated discussion over the whistleblower, who was previously identified by Real Clear Investigations as the CIA’s Eric Ciaramella, was a diversion from allowing the American people to understand who was the actual instigator of the failed effort to oust President Donald Trump from office.
Rather than being a witness who independently supported the claims of the whistleblower, the National Security Council’s Lt. Col Alex Vindman was the driving force behind the entire operation, according to the book’s interviews with key figures in the impeachment probe and other evidence. The whistleblower’s information came directly from Vindman, investigators determined.
“Vindman was the person on the call who went to the whistleblower after the call, to give the whistleblower the information he needed to file his complaint,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y.
“For all intents and purposes, Vindman is the whistleblower here, but he was able to get somebody else to do his dirty work for him,” explained one senior congressional aide.
Vindman was the only person at the National Security Council (NSC) listening in on the infamous call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to be concerned by it. Vindman immediately began talking to his identical twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who also worked at the NSC. The twins both complained to NSC Counsel John Eisenberg. Alex Vindman talked about it with his direct supervisor Tim Morrison, who was also on the call. He talked about it with another NSC lawyer, Michael Ellis.
Vindman testified that he talked to only two people outside the NSC. One was George Kent, a State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. He refused to say who the other person was. Both Vindman and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led the impeachment proceedings, strenuously resisted any attempt by investigators to discuss who the other individual was, admitting only that it was a member of the “intelligence community,” the same nebulous descriptor used for the whistleblower.
In his complaint, the whistleblower claimed “multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call” described to him the contents of the conversation. It is unclear if he was sourcing his knowledge just to multiple Vindmans or any other White House officials.
The description of the call appeared to come from the White House’s rough transcript, which Vindman helped prepare. It repeated Vindman’s unique interpretation of the call as seeking foreign interference in a campaign. It mentioned that lawyers had been informed, and Vindman had done just that. The complaint also included information from public news reports.
The real instigator of the Ukraine investigation, Vindman, testified before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on October 29, 2019, and returned to the House in November for public testimony. York writes that Vindman’s extensive testimony was more complex than news reports suggested.
Vindman repeatedly said that he viewed Trump’s phone call with Zelensky as “wrong,” but he was unable to articulate precisely why. He expressed frustration that the elected president was pushing a foreign policy at odds from the “interagency consensus” of the bureaucracy that he felt should control foreign policy.
Vindman admitted under questioning that he had thrice been offered the prestigious position of defense minister for the Ukraine government. Despite his focus on Ukraine at the NSC, Vindman did not appear knowledgeable about well-established Ukrainian corruption problems. Vindman is a Ukrainian American. He grew hostile with members who sought to understand exactly to whom he had disclosed the phone call.
Using detailed information from interviews with White House officials, members of Congress, and their key staff, York shows how Republicans had to deal with Rep. Adam Schiff’s determination to hide from the American public not just who the whistleblower was but anything about the process that led to the whistleblower complaint.
But Schiff’s behavior inadvertently confirmed how the whistleblower found his information. Every time that members asked about the second non-NSC person Vindman disclosed the call to, Schiff and other Democrats would direct the witness to not answer in order to “protect the whistleblower.” York writes:
Could that have been any clearer? The Republican line of questioning established that: 1) Vindman told two people outside the NSC. 2) One of them was George Kent. And 3) The other was in the Intelligence Community but could not be revealed because Democrats did not want to identify the whistleblower. It did not take a rocket scientist to conclude that that unidentified other person was the whistleblower.
York shows that one of the reasons Republicans stopped pressing the issue was that while they opposed Vindman pushing his own foreign policy goals over the president’s, they respected his military service. “Republicans saw Vindman as a loyal American who had strong and inflexible views on what U.S. policy toward Ukraine should be and who was offended, and spurred to action, when the President of the United States appeared to change them,” York writes.
When Vindman retired from the Army in July 2020, media reports claimed he did so because of a hostile work environment. He had been transferred from the NSC in February 2020, following Trump’s acquittal on the charges that Vindman’s complaints instigated. Vindman received no punishment for his insubordination and disobeying of a direct order to not work with Congress on impeachment.
In the opening monologue of the much-beloved musical Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye the milkman compares life for the Jewish inhabitants of the village Anatevka to the balancing act required of a fiddler scratching out a tune on a rooftop. According to Tevya’s famous allegory, the people of Anatevka are able to keep their balance thanks to their traditions. Yet as the story progresses, we see that even with tradition in place, keeping that balance is no easy task—especially when faced with rapid and unprecedented change.
Over the past century, tradition’s imperfections have led to its fade from our collective consciousness. It’s no longer viewed as a useful tool to help keep one’s balance on the roof of life, but rather is seen as a roadblock that must be removed from the path to progress. Thanks to a highly rationalist strain of Enlightenment thought beginning with thinkers such as Hobbes and Descartes, who held that all knowledge should be discovered by conscious reasoning, and culminating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution, the importance of tradition has been greatly undermined. Thomas Paine summed up the antitraditionalist creed quite nicely when he declared that “we have it in our power to begin the world over again.” Guided by the power of reason, and liberated from the chains of the past, these Enlightenment rationalists promised progress and increased human happiness.
Yet, discarding tradition has not led us to the realm of happiness, as promised by the prophets of progress. Between 1999 and 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports, the suicide rate in the US increased 24 percent. In 2017 the US saw the highest suicide rate in fifty years. Such tragic numbers are the exact opposite of what progressives, radical feminists, and neoconservatives, all the latter-day children of the Enlightenment rationalists, led us to believe would happen if only we cast off the binds of backwards tradition and were made free to pursue our individual self-actualization. By its very nature, tradition is extremely difficult to fully erase in practice, but there is no doubt that its decline has coincided with a decline in the conceptual understanding of tradition in favor of a belief in “progress.” It is no coincidence that the weakening of the mediating institutions of civil society, the transformation of the family, an acceptance of divorce and promiscuity, all have come about during a period in which tradition and custom have come to be viewed as useless chains from the past. Understanding the role of tradition in human life may help to explain why its decline has led to so much human alienation and suffering.
Before we truly may evaluate tradition, we must first rightly define it. To many, tradition is synonymous with backwardness or an inability to embrace change. This view is rooted in the heavy societal influence of French Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who held that society and its institutions perverted man’s natural goodness. Only through liberation from these institutions could man’s innate goodness be emancipated. Yet a proper understanding of tradition is quite different.
Tradition, rightly understood, isn’t an effort to freeze the world in place. Indeed, Edmund Burke, the eighteenth-century British statesman and political thinker widely considered the father of Anglo conservatism, even said that “a state without the means of some change, is without the means of its own conservation.” Similarly, Oxford philologist and traditionalist author J.R.R. Tolkien attacked this static view of the world in Lord of the Rings in the form of his character Denethor. When asked in the midst of a crisis what he wants, Denethor replies, “I would have things as they were in all the days of my life…as in the days of my longfathers before me….But if doom denies this to me, then I will have naught: neither life diminished, nor love halved, nor honour abated.” In the end, Denethor burns himself alive rather than accepting change—hardly a ringing endorsement of the static mentality so often ascribed to tradition. Professor Claes Ryn at the Catholic University of America continues the Burkean tradition, warning of the danger posed by stagnant, unchanging tradition that turns into “a kind of fetish, which has little relevance to a world that will not conform and will not stand still.” Rather, Ryn says, continuing tradition “cannot be the mere imitation or repetition of old patterns. It must be a fresh, vital force in the present.”
So if tradition is not merely a blind clinging to the past in an attempt to stop the future, what is it? A respect for tradition, properly understood, is simply an acknowledgment of the fact, as explained by conservative author Russell Kirk, “that modern people are dwarves on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time.” In other words, tradition recognizes that knowledge and wisdom are accumulated through time, and not—in contrast to popular belief—able to be purely rationally derived and developed by one person or generation in time. Society itself, in all its complexity, is the result of this historical process, not the result of a single generation constructing itself on a blank slate.
The best way to think about tradition is to view it like capital accumulation in economics. The contemporary world enjoys unprecedented wealth, because, in the past, our ancestors chose to accumulate capital—or goods used to produce other goods. As the capital stock has grown, so too has the productive capacity of our economy.
Similarly, knowledge and wisdom are accumulated through countless centuries of trial and error. Rejecting the wisdom of the past is just as foolish as each new generation seeking to start industrial society over again from scratch. This analogy is not original, but comes straight from Burke himself, who wrote that “we are afraid to put men to live and trade each on his own private stock of reason; because we suspect that this stock in each man is small, and that the individuals would do better to avail themselves of the general bank and capital of nations and of ages.”
Friedrich Hayek argued that there are two views about the nature of society. There are the rationalist constructivists, who contend “that all the useful human institutions were, and ought to be, deliberate creations of conscious reason.” To them, tradition is irrelevant, since man is capable of structuring all of life without past experience and wisdom. Every generation, then, is capable of formulating and acting on all knowledge independently. In contrast, there are those nonconstructivist rationalists, whom Hayek identifies as “more modest and less ambitious.” This school, in the words of Professor Paul Cliteur at Leiden University, “assumes that, in all our thinking, we are guided by rules of which we are not aware, and that, therefore, our conscious reason can always take account of only some of the circumstances which determine our actions.” Because the power of human understanding is limited, it is impossible for us to account for all of the relevant knowledge when making a decision.
However, Hayek points out that we are not left to wallow completely in ignorance. Rather, our ancestors have passed down abstract rules and guides that “embody the experience of many more trials and errors than any individual mind could acquire.” Hayek, drawing upon Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume, speaks of the benefit derived from a social order in which members obey abstract rules “even without understanding their significance.” This is in contrast to one in which such rules that represent the accumulated experience of the past are discarded in favor of seeking to base conduct on the information only immediately available to a single person or even a group.
It is quite easy to see that—for at least the past century—the rationalist constructivists, or the New Jacobins, as Claes Ryn calls them (after the original Jacobins in the French Revolution, who attempted to replace traditional institutions with their rationally planned society), have been culturally ascendant. The past, if it is considered at all, is often viewed as anachronistic and unenlightened, as something to be forgotten or even purged. But the negative consequences of this Jacobin mentality range from the merely inconvenient to the disastrous.
As Tevye wisely said in Fiddler on the Roof, tradition is a tool that helps people maintain their balance in life. By trying to rely solely on a constructivist form of reason, individuals have abandoned and weakened many traditional institutions, such as family, religion, and community that are an important ingredient to a stable and happy life. In his work The Quest for Community, sociologist Robert Nisbet chronicled the decline of community and the resulting alienation and decay of the social fabric. He directly attributes this loss to the rationalist constructivist perspective. In Nisbet’s words, “the modern release of the individual from traditional ties of class, religion, and kinship has made him free; but on the testimony of innumerable works in our age, this freedom is accompanied not by the sense of creative release but by the sense of disenchantment and alienation.”
The facts validate this claim. A Heritage Foundation report that compiled data from dozens of studies correlated religious practice with numerous positive outcomes. Religious practitioners experienced greater marital and familial stability, a lower risk of suicide, less likelihood of committing crimes, and longer life expectancy. Similarly, as Professor Lauren Hall at the Rochester Institute of Technology documents in her book Family and the Politics of Moderation, the family unit plays an important balancing role in society. It does this by restraining and moderating extreme collectivism and individualism, and by integrating the individual into a community. According to Hall, “a family consisting of a monogamous couple and two or more children” is best able to carry out the social functions of the family that promote both the well-being of the individual and the broader community. However, the Pew Research Center shockingly reports that “if current trends continue, 25 percent of young adults in the most recent cohort (ages 25 to 34 in 2010) will have never married by 2030. That would be the highest share in modern history.”
On a larger scale, a respect for tradition and the limits of human reason precludes attempts at “wiping the slate clean” and building the perfect planned society from scratch. One need only look at the horrifying results of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Mao’s Great Leap Forward to see what can happen when tradition and humble rationalism are abandoned.
Even if some libertarians are skeptical of the benefits of tradition on a personal level, they should be greatly concerned with its consequences on a societal level. When institutions that provide existential meaning are undermined, such as the family, atomized individuals often turn to the state and totalizing political movements for meaning. Similarly, the extermination of tradition is necessary for the triumph of totalitarian regimes. As Michael Federici of Middle Tennessee State University has argued concerning George Orwell’s 1984, “Oceania is a society governed by a totalitarian authority that aims to create complete obedience to the state. To accomplish this objective, it is necessary to destroy historical consciousness and old ways of life. Most everyone in Oceania has lost memory of historical life.” Winston Smith is able to recognize and resist the tyrannical regime, because he still maintains a shred of historical memory, and with that connection is able to see through the lies and propaganda. “He remembers a time when life was different, when social life was not controlled by the state.”
Today our society is wracked by germinal totalitarians eager to destroy history. Ostensibly this is in the name of justice, but this destruction and historical desecration are little more than a tactic for securing power for themselves. America is supposedly infected on the genetic level with unforgivable sins of racism and oppression and those seeking to destroy history conveniently have the solution: hand over power to them to facilitate our collective reeducation and penance. By failing to recognize the important role that tradition serves by preserving historical consciousness we aid and abet the rise of the forces currently seeking the complete overthrow of our society and the complete annihilation of our traditional rights and liberties.
Again, tradition is not mere stasis. The wisdom and knowledge it hands down to us is not fixed for all times and all places. Like all of society, it adapts and changes over time. According to Ryn, “tradition has to come alive in the here and now through the creativity of individuals who recognize both humanity’s dependence on the best of the past and the needs and opportunities offered by changed circumstances.”
Our task going forward is to both revitalize the decaying and forgotten stock of reason that has been passed down to us, and to forge ahead into the future. Tradition is by no means a perfect tool, and understanding and adapting it is no easy task, but properly understood, it is the best tool we have to face and weather the constantly changing circumstances of life and to preserve our hard-won liberties.Author:
“When a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk; a culture-death is a clear possibility.” — Professor Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Discourse in the Age of Show Business
While America continues to fixate on the drama-filled reality show scripted by the powers-that-be, directed from the nation’s capital, and played out in high definition across the country, the American Police State has moved steadily forward.
Nothing has changed.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a convenient, traumatic, devastating distraction.
The American people, the permanent underclass in America, have allowed themselves to be so distracted and divided that they have failed to notice the building blocks of tyranny being laid down right under their noses by the architects of the Deep State.
Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton: they have all been complicit in carrying out the Deep State’s agenda. Unless something changes to restore the balance of power, the next president—the new boss—will be the same as the old boss.
Frankly, it really doesn’t matter what you call the old/new boss—the Deep State, the Controllers, the masterminds, the shadow government, the corporate elite, the police state, the surveillance state, the military industrial complex—so long as you understand that no matter who occupies the White House, it is a profit-driven, an unelected bureaucracy that is actually calling the shots.
If our losses are mounting with every passing day—and they are—it is a calculated siege intended to ensure our defeat at the hands of a totalitarian regime.
Free speech, the right to protest, the right to challenge government wrongdoing, due process, a presumption of innocence, the right to self-defense, accountability and transparency in government, privacy, media, sovereignty, assembly, bodily integrity, representative government: all of these and more are casualties in the government’s war on the American people.
Set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized federal police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches, and the like—all of which have been sanctioned by Congress, the White House and the courts—our constitutional freedoms are being steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded.
As a result, the American people have been treated like enemy combatants, to be spied on, tracked, scanned, frisked, searched, subjected to all manner of intrusions, intimidated, invaded, raided, manhandled, censored, silenced, shot at, locked up, and denied due process.
None of these dangers have dissipated in any way.
They have merely disappeared from our televised news streams.
It’s time to get educated on what’s really going on. Thus, in the interest of liberty and truth, here’s an A-to-Z primer that spells out the grim realities of life in the American Police State that no one seems to be talking about anymore.
A is for the AMERICAN POLICE STATE. A police state “is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars, a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry with little recourse against police actions.”
B is for our battered BILL OF RIGHTS. In the militarized police culture that is America today, where you can be kicked, punched, tasered, shot, intimidated, harassed, stripped, searched, brutalized, terrorized, wrongfully arrested, and even killed by a police officer, and that officer is rarely held accountable for violating your rights, the Bill of Rights doesn’t amount to much.
D is for DRONES. It was estimated that at least 30,000 drones would be airborne in American airspace by 2020, part of an $80 billion industry. Although some drones will be used for benevolent purposes, many will also be equipped with lasers, tasers and scanning devices, among other weapons—all aimed at “we the people.”
E is for EMERGENCY STATE. From 9/11 to COVID-19, we have been the subjected to an “emergency state” that justifies all manner of government tyranny and power grabs in the so-called name of national security. The government’s ongoing attempts to declare so-called national emergencies in order to circumvent the Constitution’s system of checks and balances constitutes yet another expansion of presidential power that exposes the nation to further constitutional peril.
F is for FASCISM. A study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University concluded that the U.S. government does not represent the majority of American citizens. Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.” Moreover, the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups. In other words, we are being ruled by an oligarchy disguised as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the shots, and the people are seen as mere economic units or databits.
G is for GRENADE LAUNCHERS and GLOBAL POLICE. The federal government has distributed more than $18 billion worth of battlefield-appropriate military weapons, vehicles and equipment such as drones, tanks, and grenade launchers to domestic police departments across the country. As a result, most small-town police forces now have enough firepower to render any citizen resistance futile. Now take those small-town police forces, train them to look and act like the military, and then enlist them to be part of the United Nations’ Strong Cities Network program, and you not only have a standing army that operates beyond the reach of the Constitution but one that is part of a global police force.
H is for HOLLOW-POINT BULLETS. The government’s efforts to militarize and weaponize its agencies and employees is reaching epic proportions, with federal agencies as varied as the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration stockpiling millions of lethal hollow-point bullets, which violate international law. Ironically, while the government continues to push for stricter gun laws for the general populace, the U.S. military’s arsenal of weapons makes the average American’s handgun look like a Tinker Toy.
I is for the INTERNET OF THINGS, in which internet-connected “things” monitor your home, your health and your habits in order to keep your pantry stocked, your utilities regulated and your life under control and relatively worry-free. The key word here, however, is control. This “connected” industry propels us closer to a future where police agencies apprehend virtually anyone if the government “thinks” they may commit a crime, driverless cars populate the highways, and a person’s biometrics are constantly scanned and used to track their movements, target them for advertising, and keep them under perpetual surveillance.
J is for JAILING FOR PROFIT. Having outsourced their inmate population to private prisons run by private corporations, this profit-driven form of mass punishment has given rise to a $70 billion private prison industry that relies on the complicity of state governments to keep their privately run prisons full by jailing large numbers of Americans for petty crimes.
K is for KENTUCKY V. KING. In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers can break into homes, without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home as long as they think they may have a reason to do so. Despite the fact that the police in question ended up pursuing the wrong suspect, invaded the wrong apartment and violated just about every tenet that stands between the citizenry and a police state, the Court sanctioned the warrantless raid, leaving Americans with little real protection in the face of all manner of abuses by law enforcement officials.
M is for MAIN CORE. Since the 1980s, the U.S. government has acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation. As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core database.
N is for NO-KNOCK RAIDS. Owing to the militarization of the nation’s police forces, SWAT teams are now increasingly being deployed for routine police matters. In fact, more than 80,000 of these paramilitary raids are carried out every year. That translates to more than 200 SWAT team raids every day in which police crash through doors, damage private property, terrorize adults and children alike, kill family pets, assault or shoot anyone that is perceived as threatening—and all in the pursuit of someone merely suspected of a crime, usually possession of some small amount of drugs.
O is for OVERCRIMINALIZATION and OVERREGULATION. Thanks to an overabundance of 4500-plus federal crimes and 400,000 plus rules and regulations, it’s estimated that the average American actually commits three felonies a day without knowing it. As a result of this overcriminalization, we’re seeing an uptick in Americans being arrested and jailed for such absurd “violations” as letting their kids play at a park unsupervised, collecting rainwater and snow runoff on their own property, growing vegetables in their yard, and holding Bible studies in their living room.
P is for PATHOCRACY and PRECRIME. When our own government treats us as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police and other government agents, mistreated, and then jailed in profit-driven private prisons if we dare step out of line, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.” Couple that with the government’s burgeoning precrime programs, which will use fusion centers, data collection agencies, behavioral scientists, corporations, social media, and community organizers and by relying on cutting-edge technology for surveillance, facial recognition, predictive policing, biometrics, and behavioral epigenetics in order to identify and deter so-called potential “extremists,” dissidents or rabble-rousers. Bear in mind that anyone seen as opposing the government—whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between—is now viewed as an extremist.
Q is for QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.Qualified immunity allows police officers to walk away without paying a dime for their wrongdoing. Conveniently, those deciding whether a cop should be immune from having to personally pay for misbehavior on the job all belong to the same system, all cronies with a vested interest in protecting the police and their infamous code of silence: city and county attorneys, police commissioners, city councils and judges.
R is for ROADSIDE STRIP SEARCHES and BLOOD DRAWS. The courts have increasingly erred on the side of giving government officials—especially the police—vast discretion in carrying out strip searches, blood draws and even anal and vaginal probes for a broad range of violations, no matter how minor the offense. In the past, strip searches were resorted to only in exceptional circumstances where police were confident that a serious crime was in progress. In recent years, however, strip searches have become routine operating procedures in which everyone is rendered a suspect and, as such, is subjected to treatment once reserved for only the most serious of criminals.
S is for the SURVEILLANCE STATE. On any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears. A byproduct of the electronic concentration camp in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.
T is for TASERS. Nonlethal weapons such as tasers, stun guns, rubber pellets and the like have been used by police as weapons of compliance more often and with less restraint—even against women and children—and in some instances, even causing death. These “nonlethal” weapons also enable police to aggress with the push of a button, making the potential for overblown confrontations over minor incidents that much more likely. A Taser Shockwave, for instance, can electrocute a crowd of people at the touch of a button
V is for VIRUSES AND FORCED VACCINATIONS. What started out as an apparent effort to prevent a novel coronavirus from sickening the nation (and the world) has become yet another means by which world governments (including the U.S.) can expand their powers, abuse their authority, and further oppress their constituents. With millions of dollars in stimulus funds being directed towards policing agencies across the country, the federal government plans to fight this COVID-19 virus with riot gear, gas masks, ballistic helmets, drones, and hi-tech surveillance technology. The road we are traveling is paved with lockdowns, SWAT team raids, mass surveillance and forced vaccinations. Now there’s talk of mobilizing the military to deliver forced vaccinations, mass surveillance in order to carry out contact tracing, and heavy fines and jail time for those who dare to venture out without a mask, congregate in worship without the government’s blessing, or re-open their businesses without the government’s say-so.
W is for WHOLE-BODY SCANNERS. Using either x-ray radiation or radio waves, scanning devices and government mobile units are being used not only to “see” through your clothes but to spy on you within the privacy of your home. While these mobile scanners are being sold to the American public as necessary security and safety measures, we can ill afford to forget that such systems are rife with the potential for abuse, not only by government bureaucrats but by the technicians employed to operate them.
Y is for YOU-NESS. Using your face, mannerisms, social media and “you-ness” against you, you are now be tracked based on what you buy, where you go, what you do in public, and how you do what you do. Facial recognition software promises to create a society in which every individual who steps out into public is tracked and recorded as they go about their daily business. The goal is for government agents to be able to scan a crowd of people and instantaneously identify all of the individuals present. Facial recognition programs are being rolled out in states all across the country.
Z is for ZERO TOLERANCE. We have moved into a new paradigm in which young people are increasingly viewed as suspects and treated as criminals by school officials and law enforcement alike, often for engaging in little more than childish behavior or for saying the “wrong” word. In some jurisdictions, students have also been penalized under school zero tolerance policies for such inane “crimes” as carrying cough drops, wearing black lipstick, bringing nail clippers to school, using Listerine or Scope, and carrying fold-out combs that resemble switchblades. The lesson being taught to our youngest—and most impressionable—citizens is this: in the American police state, you’re either a prisoner (shackled, controlled, monitored, ordered about, limited in what you can do and say, your life not your own) or a prison bureaucrat (politician, police officer, judge, jailer, spy, profiteer, etc.).
Recently, both the big “mainstream” media and hundreds of alternative sources on the Internet have overflowed with the opinions of commentators, pundits, bloggers, public officials at all levels of the federal system, retired military officers, sports stars, and assorted “celebrities”, concerning the authority (or lack thereof) of the President of the United States to intervene in the rampage of riots, looting, arson, and even killings which have plagued American cities following the homicide of Mr. George Floyd. The major lesson one learns from this palaver is that the writers and speakers generating it possess little to no real knowledge of the subject-matter, and apparently have no inclination to acquire any. That is both amazing and frightening. For, besides being of the highest importance, the subject-matter is so clear cut that anyone who has obtained a secondary-school education of the quality generally available prior to (say) 1970 should be able to understand it with a minimum of mental strain. The following points are intended to clarify the matter for anyone whose thinking needs clarification—
FIRST. Article II, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States mandates that “[b]efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the President] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” Everything which follows in this analysis comes within the purview of this “Oath”.
SECOND. Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” That is, all “executive Power”, because the latter Clause recognizes no exceptions or exclusions.
THIRD. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that “[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States[.]” The Constitution recognizes no one other than the President as the recipient of this status and authority.
FOURTH. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This is not only a duty, but also a power and a right (in the strict legal senses of those terms). Self-evidently, one manner of fulfilling this duty, and exercising this right and power, is for the President to take appropriate actions as “Commander in Chief” of the forces the Constitution places within his control.
FIFTH. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution delegate to Congress the power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections”, whereupon “such Part of the[ Militia]” as may be “call[ed] forth” is considered to “be employed in the Service of the United States”.
SIXTH. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” not only its own “Power[ ]” “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia”, but also “all other Powers vested by th[e] Constitution in * * * any * * * Officer thereof”, such as the “Power[ ]” of the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”.
SEVENTH. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides (in pertinent part) that “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And Section 5 of that Amendment provides that “[t]he Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
EIGHTH. Pursuant to its powers recited above, Congress enacted the present Section 252 of Title 10 of the United States Code:
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
This is no novel contemporary piece of legislation, but derives from the Act of 29 July 1861, Chap. XXV, An Act to provide for the Suppression of Rebellion and Resistance to the Laws of the United States, and to amend the Act entitled “An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Law of the Union,” &c., passed February twenty-eight, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, 12 Stat. 281, and from the Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the Act now in force for those purposes, § 2, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
Section 252, apparently, is what people who pontificate about the President’s authority are calling “The Insurrection Act”. If so, the contention of critics that President Trump cannot rely upon this statute is balderdash—inasmuch as Presidents before him have invoked it successfully, with no widespread (or, really, any significant) outcry against the legality of their actions. See Executive Order No. 10730, 24 September 1957, 22 Federal Register 7628 (President Eisenhower); Executive Order No. 11053, 30 September 1962, 27 Federal Register 9681 (President Kennedy); Executive Order No. 11111, 11 July 1963, 28 Federal Register 5709 (President Kennedy); Executive Order No. 11118, 10 September 1963, 28 Federal Register 9863 (President Kennedy).
NINTH. Although 10 U.S.C. § 252 could apply under some circumstances to some of the disorders which have occurred in various States in recent days, it is not the statute which President Trump—were he well advised—should invoke to deal with the generality of riots, looting, arson, and even killings which Americans in those places have suffered. The statute which better fits the situation is the present Section 253 of Title 10 of the United States Code:
The President, by using the militia * * * shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
This, too, is no novel contemporary piece of legislation, but derives from the Act of 20 April 1871, chap. XXII, An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes, § 3, 17 Stat. 13, 14. And its terms exactly describe the situation in those States in which civil unrest has broken out in recent days—namely, that “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]” have terrorized the peaceful inhabitants, and “the constituted authorities of th[ose] State[s] are unable, fail, or refuse to protect th[e] right[s], privilege[s], immunit[ies], or to give the protection named in the Constitution and secured by law” for some “part[s] or class[es] of [those States’] people.
TENTH. Section 253 imposes no limits on the legal, let alone the commonplace, definitions of “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” to which it applies. And the rioting, looting, arson, and killings which have taken place in various States surely fall within any acceptable definitions of those words.
ELEVENTH. Section 253 imposes no limit on what “militia” (or part thereof) the President may “us[e]”, so long (obviously) as that “militia” is recognized as such (i) by the Constitution itself—namely, “the Militia of the several States” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1); or (ii) by a law of Congress which refers to some “Part of the[ Militia of the several States]” which “may be employed in the Service of the United States” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16).
And pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15, 16, and 18 of the Constitution, for “employ[ment] in the Service of the United States” in aid of “execut[ing] the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress[ing] Insurrections” (among other responsibilities), Congress has defined “[t]he militia of the United States” as follows:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, [with certain exceptions not relevant here], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 U.S.C. § 246.
TWELFTH. Section 253 imposes no limits on “the measures” that the President may “consider[ ] necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” to which that statute is addressed. So his statutory authority must include “using the militia” (as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 246) “to execute [whatever] Laws of the Union” may apply to the situation (which authority and responsibility the Constitution explicitly assigns to the Militia in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution), so as to fulfill his duty to “take Care that th[os]e Laws be faithfully executed” (under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution).
THIRTEENTH. As Section 253 provides, should the President determine that “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy * * * so hinders the execution of the laws of [a] State, and of the United States within th[at] State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection”, he may “consider” that “the State * * * ha[s] denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.” In that regard, Section 253 is especially “appropriate legislation” through which Congress has empowered the President to “enforce” in the first instance the requirement that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, perforce of Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. See the origin of 10 U.S.C. § 253 in Act of 20 April 1871, chap. XXII, An Act to enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other Purposes, § 3, 17 Stat. 13, 14.
For instance, the President could determine that, in those States in which riots, looting, arson, and homicide have taken place with no adequate response from public officials—or, even worse, with their tacit acquiescence or approval—“part[s] or class[es] of [those States’] people” have been deprived of the rights to “property” and even “life” “named in the Constitution”, as well as the immunities “secured by law” from, for example, riots (18 U.S.C. § 2101), insurrections (18 U.S.C. § 2383), and sedition (18 U.S.C. § 2384).
To this, no disgruntled State or Local official (or anyone else, for that matter) can offer a legal objection, whether under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution or otherwise. After all, Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment delegates to Congress a plenary supervisory power which it may wield in aid of Section 1 of that Amendment against the States perforce of Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution (“the Supremacy Clause”). Under the Supremacy Clause, Sections 1 and 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, along with 10 U.S.C. § 253, are “the supreme Law of the Land” by which “the Judges in every State shall be bound * * * , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” And, as required by Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, “the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers * * * of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution” in the foregoing regard, not to disregard let alone to defy it.
FOURTEENTH. Inasmuch as Section 253 reaches every “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” which comes within its terms, the President need not deal solely with the rioters, looters, arsonists, insurrectionists, and killers to be found at the scenes of their crimes, but may also search out organizers, agitators and propagandists, logisticians, intermediaries, financiers, and other accomplices of any sort who have escaped to or who have always performed their nefarious operations in distant places. And the President’s authority in this regard embraces not only individuals, but also all ostensibly legitimate “foundations”, “think tanks”, and like institutions which fund, otherwise support, or encourage such criminal misbehavior.
FIFTEENTH. As appears on its face, Section 253 does not require the President to solicit or receive the approval of a State’s Legislature, Governor, or other official before he (the President) executes that statute in that State. In this respect, Section 253 differs from 10 U.S.C. § 251. See the origin of § 251 in the Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act in force for those purposes, § 1, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
SIXTEENTH. Were the Constitution and 10 U.S.C. § 253 by themselves not enough to drive the point home, the Supreme Court has in principle already opined that the President’s determinations under that statute must be accepted as conclusive by everyone else, including the Judiciary.
Pursuant to its constitutional power “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia * * * to repel Invasions”, in 1795 Congress enacted legislation which provided in pertinent part
[t]hat whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper.
Act of 28 February 1795, Chap. XXXVI, An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and to repeal the act in force for those purposes, § 1, 1 Stat. 424, 424.
Referring to the power so delegated by Congress to the President, the Supreme Court described it as
not a power which can be executed without a corresponding responsibility. It is, in its terms, a limited power, confined to cases of actual invasion, or of imminent danger of invasion. If it be a limited power, * * * by whom is the exigency to be judged of and decided? Is the president the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question * * * ? We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.
* * * * *
If we look at the language of the act of 1795, * * * [t]he power itself is confided to the executive of the Union, to him who is, by the constitution, “the commander in chief of the militia, when called into the actual service of the United States,” whose duty it is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and whose responsibility for an honest discharge of his official obligations is secured by the highest sanctions. He is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance, and is bound to act according to his belief of the facts. If he does so act, and decides to call forth the militia, his orders for this purpose are in strict conformity with the provisions of the law; and it would seem to follow as a necessary consequence, that every act done by a subordinate officer, in obedience to such orders, is equally justifiable. The law contemplates that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect; and it cannot, therefore, be a correct inference, that any other person has a just right to disobey them. The law does not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it. Whenever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him, upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.
Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 19, 29-32 (1827) (Story, J., for the Court).
This legal analysis applies directly, and with decisive effect, to 10 U.S.C. § 253—
(i) Congress enacted the Act of 1795 pursuant to its power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 “[to] provide for calling forth the Militia to * * * repel Invasions”. That very same Clause also authorizes Congress “[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, [and] suppress Insurrections”. Self-evidently, the principles Martin v. Mott invoked are equally applicable to all of the purposes for which the Militia may be called forth.
(ii) The Act of 1795 empowered the President “to call forth such number of the militia * * * as he may judge necessary”, and “to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia, as he shall think proper”. In like wise, 10 U.S.C. § 253 delegates to the President the broad authority “by using the militia * * * [to] take such measures as he considers necessary”. Thus, the latter statute is entitled to the same construction Martin v. Mott applied to the former one—namely, that “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and * * * his decision is conclusive upon all other persons”; and “that, under such circumstances, orders shall be given to carry the power into effect”, and no “other person has a just right to disobey them.” Indeed, as applied to 10 U.S.C. § 253, the principles of Martin v. Mott should extend far beyond the facts of that case. For there the President’s power could be directed only at actual members of the Militia; whereas, under Section 253, “such measures as [the President] considers necessary” are not confined to members of the Militia alone, but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior is in any way implicated, for good or for bad, in the “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]” those “measures” are designed “to suppress”.
(iii) Martin v. Mott held that the Act of 1795 “d[id] not provide for any appeal from the judgment of the president, or for any right in subordinate officers to review his decision, and in effect defeat it”—whether through their own unaided efforts or by importuning the Judiciary to interject itself into the matter on their behalf (which the Supreme Court refused to do in that case). Neither does 10 U.S.C. § 253 “provide for any [such] appeal” or “right * * * to review” for a member of “the militia of the United States” called forth under the aegis of that statute. The modern-day Supreme Court has recognized that the Judiciary may not interfere with the President’s enforcement of discipline within the Militia. See Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 5-12 (1973). And other persons affected by the President’s “measures” are no better off. For whereas under the Act of 1795 the President’s power extended only to actual members of the Militia, under 10 U.S.C. § 253 “such measures as [the President] considers necessary” are not confined to members of the Militia alone, but instead may reach essentially anyone and everyone whose behavior is in any way involved in the perpetration of “insurrection[s], domestic violence, unlawful combination[s], or conspirac[ies]”.
(iv) In reference to the Act of 1795, Martin v. Mott observed that “[w]henever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him, upon his own opinion of certain facts, * * * the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.” No less than that Act, 10 U.S.C. § 253 delegates an equally “discretionary power” to the President to “take such measures as he considers necessary”. That being so, the President’s exercise of that power cannot be second-guessed by the Judiciary for any reason whatsoever. For “[t]he province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion. Questions in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court).
(v) And Martin v. Mott is not alone in this regard. As the Supreme Court held in Nishimura Ekiu v. United States,
the final determination of * * * facts may be entrusted by Congress to executive officers; and in such a case, * * * in which a statute gives a discretionary power to an officer, to be exercised by him upon his own judgment of certain facts, he is made the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts, and no other tribunal, unless expressly authorized by law to do so, is at liberty to reëxamine or controvert the sufficiency of the evidence on which he acted.
142 U.S. 651, 660 (1892), citing inter alia Martin v. Mott, 25 U.S. (12 Wheaton) 19, 31 (1827), and followed in Lem Moon Sing v. United States, 158 U.S. 538, 544 (1895).
(v) Finally, no matter how deeply “the Deep State’s” friends on the Bench despise President Trump and how desperately they desire to thwart him at every turn, unless and until the Supreme Court overrules Martin v. Mott the lower courts are required to adhere to its reasoning “no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be”. Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982). Within the Judiciary, only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedents. E.g., Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989); Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997); State Oil Company v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997).
IN SUM, those people who vociferously contend that the President has no authority to suppress the kinds of riots, looting, arson, and killings going on within the States these days know not whereof they speak. And if plain ignorance is not the explanation for their behavior, what is?
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment. He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms… He can be reached at his new address: 52 Stonegate Court Front Royal, VA 22630.
Some people want to blame the intrusive, overreaching federal government we have today on the Constitution.
Many cite a quote from 19th-century anarchist Lysander Spooner to drive home their point:
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
But if you really stop and think about it, this argument is silly. As Tenth Amendment Center executive director Micheal Boldin said in a tweet, “You can’t blame an inanimate object for the loss of liberty. Words on paper can’t cause or prevent anything, no matter how many times you quote Spooner.”
James Madison called constitutions “parchment barriers,” and said they were insufficient to stop “the encroaching spirit of power” on their own. In Federalist #48, Madison wrote:
“A mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.”
In his seminal commentary on the Constitution, St. George Tucker, the most prominent legal mind of his time, reiterated the insufficiency of “parchment chains.”
“All governments have a natural tendency towards an increase, and assumption of power; and the administration of the federal government, has too frequently demonstrated, that the people of America are not exempt from this vice in their constitution. We have seen that parchment chains are not sufficient to correct this unhappy propensity.”
Think of it this way. Let’s say you and I agree to a contract. After a few months, I start ignoring and violating various provisions. You don’t do anything about it. Eventually, I have completely disregarded our agreement.
Would you blame the contract?
Of course not. It wasn’t the contract’s fault. It was perfectly fine. We both knew what we agreed to. The fault lies with you because you didn’t do anything about it when I started violating its provisions. It’s your fault you didn’t enforce the contract – not the contract’s fault!
The same holds true for the Constitution. We know the limits it places on federal power. James Madison gave us a blueprint to fight back when the federal government enacts “unwarrantable measures” or even warrantable measures that happen to be unpopular. States were intended to serve as a check on federal power. They were expected to resist and nullify unconstitutional actions. It’s not the Constitution’s fault we’ve failed to take action to stop federal overreach. That, my friends, is on each one of us!
You’ve probably heard the quote:
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
That quote is generally attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but he’s not the one who said it. The credit actually goes to Wendell Phillips, a staunch abolitionist activist in the 1840s and 1850s. The short version is plenty poignant and relates to the problem of constitutional government. We can’t just depend on words on parchment. We have to remain vigilant and fight back when those in positions of authority try to cross the lines limiting their power. The Constitution doesn’t have eyes, ears or arms. It can’t stop the encroachment. We have to – and it starts with vigilance.
Put in full context, the quote offers an even more powerful lesson to those who pin the blame for overreaching government on the failure of parchment barriers.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”
Phillips reveals the keys to liberty – “unintermitted agitation” and “continued oversight.” This does not imply simply writing down limits on government power in a document. It means standing up and saying no when the government oversteps its bounds. It means resisting unconstitutional acts. It means, as Madison advised, “a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union.”
When people rely solely on parchment barriers, when we fail to remain vigilant, when we cease unintermitted agitation, power will inevitably “steal from the many to the few.” You can quote Spooner all day and blame the document, but you’d be better served to look in a mirror. If the government is growing out of control, it’s not because words on paper have failed to act, but rather, because people haven’t taken the human action necessary to stop it.
The situation had become “worrying,” in fact, even before the results of the 2016 presidential election were known. As we now can read in the Department of Justice report by Michael Horowitz, the senior levels of government during the Obama Administration were colluding to prevent President Trump from winning the election, and then, after it, to frame him in an attempted coup d’état.
Mayors of many cities and other local officials have deliberately protected criminals over law-abiding citizens and allowed the destruction to take place.
“I thought things were partisan and tough 30 years ago — nothing compared to today. Things have fundamentally changed… [the left] represents a revolutionary Rousseauian party that believes in tearing down the system… They’re interested in complete political victory. They’re not interested in compromise. They’re not interested in dialectic, exchange of views… It’s a substitute religion. They view their political opponents… as evil because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they’re trying to reach…” — US Attorney General William Barr, Fox News, August 9, 2020.
“Today our nation is facing the most serious threat to establish such a tyranny in our entire history.” — David Horowitz, Frontpage Mag, August 10, 2020.
The wave of riots that has followed the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25 appears to have nothing to do with Floyd’s death and everything to do with groups seeking to overthrow America. Mayors of many cities and other local officials have deliberately protected criminals over law-abiding citizens and allowed the destruction to take place. Pictured: Fireworks, launched by rioters, explode in the middle of a group of police officers in Washington DC on May 30, 2020. (Photo by Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)
The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020 might appear, looking back, as a pretext for mayhem. His reported killing by a white police officer was immediately followed by a wave of riots during which neighborhoods in several major cities were devastated. Stores were looted, buildings were burned and people were murdered as mayors and other local public officials chose to let the rioters run wild, whip up racial conflict and protect the criminals rather than the citizens being brutalized. The riots quickly appeared to have nothing to do with Floyd’s death and everything to do with groups seeking to overthrow America.
In the past, members of the radical organization Antifa had committed acts of violence, but never before had been able to sow terror throughout major cities. This time, they could and they did.
In addition, the Marxist movement Black Lives Matter (BLM), which seemed to have disappeared since the election of President Donald J. Trump — who, incidentally, did more for the black and Hispanic minority communities in three years than anyone had done for decades — suddenly reappeared, well-funded and well-organized, at the heart of the riots. BLM received further support from the mayors of several major cities and gained even more popularity while attacking first the statues of former slave-owners, such as George Washington, and then those of the escaped slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass. In Washington, DC and New York City, “Black Lives Matter” was painted on avenues in huge yellow letters – in New York by the mayor himself.
This may have been the first time in US history that a Marxist movement received corporate support: Amazon, Microsoft, Nabisco, Gatorade, Deckers and other large American firms donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, now a major beneficiary of US corporate largesse. Many colleges and universities also joined in backing the movement. The trustees of Princeton University decided to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from the university’s school of public policy. They said that they had examined the “long and damaging history of racism in America” and that Wilson’s “racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college”. Calls to “#CancelYale” surged across social media, alleging that Yale’s namesake, Elihu Yale, was a slave-owner and slave-trader, and that the university must change its name, as well. Yale University President, Peter Salovey, however, said that would not be done, explaining that Yale was “relatively unexceptional in his own time.”
Also for the first time, mayors of many cities and other local officials have deliberately protected criminals over law-abiding citizens and allowed the destruction to take place. Seattle’s Mayor Jenny Durkan abandoned an entire area of the city, dubbed CHAZ (and later CHOP) to rioters and suggested that the police-free zone would create a “summer of love“, then did nothing while rapes, vandalism and murders took place. Portland’s Mayor Ted Wheeler has allowed for nearly three months an entire district fall prey to rioters. The city councils of New York and Los Angeles, America’s two largest cities, voted to cut the budgets of their police forces drastically. The Minneapolis City Council went even further and voted to disband the city’s police force altogether.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in a seeming surrender to the mob, began referring to the pandemonium in Portland as the “immense power of peaceful protests” and compared federal law enforcement officers trying to defend a federal building against marauding arsonists to Nazi-era “stormtroopers.”
Former President Barack Obama, speaking at the funeral of a civil rights leader, Congressman John Lewis, compared President Trump to the segregationist governor of Alabama in the 1960s, George Wallace — who happened to be a Democrat. He spoke of “police officers kneeling on the necks of Black Americans,” distorting the facts. In Minneapolis, a single policeman had knelt on the neck of a single black American, once. The police officer is in jail, awaiting trial, and his abuse has been severely and universally condemned.
The idea that the American police are “racist” has been used to justify riots and destruction. Some police officers may well be racist, but accusing all American police officers of racism does not align with the facts. Statistics show that the vast majority of black people killed by police officers are armed and dangerous. Moreover, the police officers involved are sometimes black. Statistics also show that, on average, 94% of the black people killed each year in the US are killed by other black people. But many people who talk about racism do not seem even slightly concerned about those black lives that have been taken. During the riots — in which people were killed by rioters or by looters who used the riots as cover — the main victims were black people, sometimes children.
Already in 2017, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had worried about the sporadic riots that were breaking out, for instance, when conservative speakers were invited to speak. The United States, he said , “is in the throes of a one-sided cultural civil war…. Surrender or fight – our country is at stake.”
The situation, in fact, had become “worrying” even before the results of the 2016 presidential election were known. As we now can read in the report by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the senior levels of government during the Obama Administration were colluding to prevent President Trump from winning the election, and then, after it, to frame him in an attempted coup d’état.
On the day after the election, people took to the streets with signs saying, “Not my President”: President Trump’s legitimacy was immediately questioned. On the day of his inauguration, in the downtown area of Washington DC, violent riots and acts of vandalism took place.
During the weeks that followed, President Trump was accused, with no evidence, of “collusion with Russia”. The false charges lasted for more than two years and may well have hampered the management of the country. Former CIA Director John Brennan claimed that President Trump had “worked with Russians” and was “treasonous“. When the accusations turned out to be unfounded, the president’s accusers, in the hope of impeaching him, turned to a telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. President Trump was described as having “endangered the security of the country”. An impeachment procedure, conducted in violation of all of the rules, followed. When law professor Jonathan Turley pointed out that the procedure was violating the rules, he received death threats. Retired Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz said that “For Congress to impeach President Trump for abuse of Congress would be an abuse of power by Congress”. Left-wing members of the House of Representatives went ahead impeaching the president anyway. They failed.
In the effort to overturn the lawful 2016 election — and to coerce witnesses to “flip” and testify falsely against President Trump — the lives of others were ruined as well.
Evidence now clearly shows that General Michael Flynn, an outstanding four-star general and war hero, was the victim of an entrapment plot that forced him to resign, ruined him financially, and came close to destroying his life. He is now in the throes of an attempt to entrap him again by a politicized judge, Emmett Sullivan, and a politicized judiciary. Although the prosecutor, the Department of Justice, dropped the case after it was disclosed that vast amounts of exculpatory evidence had been withheld — Judge Sullivan decided, illegally and in the finest tradition of the former Soviet Union, that he would be both the judge and the prosecutor, and continue to try the case that he was supposed to be impartially judging. The trial is still ongoing. Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi were among other innocent citizens who also had their lives upended.
“I thought things were partisan and tough 30 years ago — nothing compared to today. Things have fundamentally changed… [the left] represents a revolutionary Rousseauian party that believes in tearing down the system… They’re interested in complete political victory. They’re not interested in compromise. They’re not interested in dialectic, exchange of views… It’s a substitute religion. They view their political opponents… as evil because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they’re trying to reach…”
As Barr said recently when testifying at House of Representatives committee: “Since when is it okay to burn down a federal court?”
Thirty years ago, many things were indeed different. Destructive forces, however, were at work. A few authors attempted to sound an alarm, without success.
In a book published in 1992, The Devaluing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children, former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett quoted prominent Democrat historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.:
“The bonds of national cohesion in the republic are sufficiently fragile already. Public education should aim to strengthen those bonds not to weaken them… The alternative to integration is disintegration”.
The same year, policy analyst Martin Anderson published Impostors in the Temple: American Intellectuals Are Destroying Our Universities and Cheating Our Students of Their Future. “They pretend to teach”, he wrote, “they pretend to do original, important work. They do neither. They are impostors in the temple. And from these impostors most of the educational ills of America flow.”
The same year again, the esteemed economist and social commentator, Thomas Sowell, who happens to be black, wrote in his book, Inside American Education: “Whether blatant or subtle, brainwashing has become a major, time-consuming activity in American education at all levels”.
There is arguably more at work than brainwashing. There is also the long march of the radicals through American institutions described by Roger Kimball in his book The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America. Now, as those students have graduated, they are now part of the government and large corporations, subverting Western culture from within.
American author David Horowitz, described what has been happening since November 8, 2016 as “sabotage”, and wrote recently:
“On the Rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington is inscribed these words: ‘I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.’ This statement by Thomas Jefferson is the heart of the democracy in whose founding he played so central a role. It is why the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment and not the Second, or Fourth, or Fifth.
“Today our nation is facing the most serious threat to establish such a tyranny in our entire history.”
Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.
‘What are they trying to hide? What is the problem? Why won’t they let us sit in?’ a mom tells ‘Fox & Friends Weekend’
A Tennessee school district is under fire for asking parents to sign a form agreeing not to eavesdrop on kids’ virtual classes over concerns they could overhear confidential information.
After significant pushback, Rutherford County Schools is allowing parents to tune in with permission from the teacher but they can’t record the classes.
“It’s ridiculous. It’s so hypocritical because they’ve been data mining our children for years, compliments of common core,” Laurie Cardoza-Moore, founder of Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, said on “Fox & Friends Weekend” Saturday.
“What are they trying to hide? What is the problem? Why won’t they let us sit in?” the homeschool mom of five asked.
“Obviously, because they are teaching our children propaganda that they should not be teaching,” she said. “They are trying to socialize our children.”
She added: “We have had a major problem in education, not just here in Tennessee, but across the country where they are indoctrinating our children with propaganda.”
Cardoza-Moore questioned why the school would encourage parents to snitch on one another and what would happen if a parent violates the waiver.
“Does that mean somebody from the school district is going to knock on my door and pull my kid out of my home, his virtual classroom?” she asked. “Or is it going to be my tax dollars that fund my child’s public education, my child won’t get to participate in education because of it?”
The school district responded in a statement to Fox News.
“We are aware of the concern that has been raised about this distance-learning letter that was sent to parents,” James Evans, communications director for Rutherford County Schools, said.
Evans added: “We have issued new guidance to principles that parents can assist their children during virtual group lessons with permission of the instructor but should refrain from sharing or recordings any information about other students in the classroom.”
Cardoza-Moore said this is because teachers are pushing “social justice” instead of reading, writing and math, and they don’t want to be held accountable to the parents.Caleb Parke is an associate editor for FoxNews.com. You can follow him on Twitter @calebparke
We wish we didn’t have to report these heartbreaking stories, to you, our dear reader, but many times our hand is forced because the national media never covers stories like these. This is a story you won’t see on CNN or the increasingly compromised Fox News. There is certain to be a national media embargo on this one.
GEORGETOWN, S.C. (WCBD) – A crash Monday afternoon led to the fatal shooting of a man and his stepdaughter in Georgetown.
Deputies say an altercation occurred shortly after the crash on Highway 521 and Indian Hut Road near Andrews. The fight resulted in three people being shot – two of whom later died. The third victim, a man who stopped to help, survived the shooting.
Nick Wall and his 21-year-old stepdaughter, Laura Anderson, died at the hospital – Wall died at Georgetown Hospital while Anderson died at the Medical University of South Carolina. [WBTW]
What more is there to say, really? This is a crime you expect to happen in South Africa, but not in America. But lately, these black-on-white violence stories seem to be popping up every day. What we do know is that Black Lives Matter and the ruling class have totally and completely poisoned the well of race relations in America.
It is sadly not surprising anymore that minor fender benders are turning into cold-blooded killings. Many black people are being trained by the Enemy of the People to hate white people. Just watch any of the videos from the Black Lives Matter gang and you will see the venomous hatred and resentment on display. They aren’t even trying to hide their racism anymore. The suspect, Ty Sheem Ha Sheen Walters of Moncks Corner, ran into the woods after the shooting but was later apprehended for the killings, according to police. Walters is facing two charges of murder and one charge of attempted murder
Two separate accounts on social media openly celebrated the horrific murder of 5-year-old Cannon Hinnant, shot execution style by Darius Sessoms after the child road his bike on his lawn, using the child’s race as a focal point as news of the crime spread across social media.
In one post, a Taco Bell worker from North Carolina, in an expletive and spelling mistake-laden reply to a post celebrating the memory of the child who was soon due to begin kindergarten, wrote: “[I don’t] give a shit – he is white it’s time for revenge we tired, shit’s over with, now we shooting y’all [sic] go cry to ya momma [sic].”
Nationalist Review archived the suspected Taco Bell worker’s Facebook page after making the provocative remark.
Protect Americans, the Facebook page on which the vile comment appeared, penned a post appealing for users to track down the person responsible for the comment.
“Currently trying to find Mr. Terrell Kent’s employer to let him know his employee’s opinions but can’t find anything,” they wrote. “Likely another loser without a job.”
People like this are the scum of the earth. We need to discuss the rampant and unfettered racism that occurs daily in the black community. If anyone finds any information on him please let me know.”
Currently trying to find Mr. Terrell Kent’s employer to let him know his employee’s opinions but can’t find anything likely another loser without a job.
People like this are the scum of the earth. We need to discuss the rampant and unfettered racism that occurs daily in the black community. If anyone finds any information on him please let me know.
Social media erupted in disgust at the inflammatory post written by the man identified as Kent. However, it was later revealed that on another post mentioning the same story, another man, this time reportedly from San Francisco, saw fit to celebrate the young boy’s execution.
Yesterday, National File reported on the horrific incident that claimed the life of an innocent child:
Cannon Hinnant, 5, was riding his bike with his sisters in a Wilson, NC, neighborhood on a summer’s day, outside his father’s house, when his young life was cut short.
Hinnant, according to family members, rode his bike onto the neighbor’s yard, prompting Darius N. Sessoms, 25, to shoot him in the head at point blank range. His sisters, 7 and 8, saw their brother get shot.
“[On] Sunday, August 9, 2020 a sweet soul named Cannon Hinnant was taken from this world over a senseless act,” a Go Fund Me post for the family read. “A beautiful 5 year old baby boy riding his bicycle was shot by his neighbor point blank in Wilson NC.”
“One minute he is enjoying his life, the next it all ends because he rode into his neighbors yard.. 5 years old guys!!” The post added. “Nothing prepares a parent for the loss of their child. No child should ever have their future stolen from them. As of now the person involved is still hiding like the coward he is. Prayers that he is found soon and justice can begin.”
Eyewitness Doris Labrant said that Sessoms ran out of his house, pointed the gun at the boy’s head, fired, then ran back inside.
“My first reaction was he’s playing with the kids,” Labrant recalled. “For a second, I thought, ‘That couldn’t happen.’ People don’t run across the street and kill kids.”
I received the above information from a good friend via email. It should serve as a clarion warning call to all Americans that the leftist propaganda is working its insidious effect on some of the young, disaffected black youth. We must all be situationally aware at all times, we must be armed, and we must have practiced how to react decisively to save our lives and those of innocents around us.
The national leftist media portrays the American black population as though it is thoroughly supportive of the Democrat party, and of BLM, and the BLM organization’s philosophy and its actions.
But the media portrayal of black America is very wrong, andthat point needs to be made loudly and often.
Most black Americans are much more conservative than the media would have you believe. Blacks are leaving the Democrat party in large numbers, more than in the past 50 years.
The leftist media and its owners in the globalist deep state seek to cause extreme civil unrest and division in America. The portrayal of Black America as a monolithic, radical, Democrat base is a key element of that goal.
They would like little better than to convince all the people that we face a black vs. white struggle in America today. But that isn’t true.
We are facing an assault upon America by the deep state and its “useful idiots”, which include the young Marxist groups, like BLM.
Marxist groups like BLM, Antifa, and others, now feel emboldened to begin killing anyone perceived as unsupportive of their ideology, and many of them have given themselves over to genocidal racism.
But they will also turn their pathological hatred toward anyone of any race, creed, or interest group if that person, or persons, fails to voice support for their demands. Blacks are not safe from the Marxists, nor are women, nor are gays, nor are lifelong Democrats if they don’t support their Marxist goals and demands.
Do not fall for the media propaganda; don’t believe that all blacks are Marxist Democrats who support BLM. But be aware that there are black, white, and other groups which have been taken in by violent, Marxist ideological groups, and they are dangerous.
Be safe. Be aware of your surroundings and situation. Be armed and ready to defend yourself and your family. The Marxist groups are violent, deadly, and may attack without warning.
(Natural News) We have a stunning video that was captured last night by Brendan Gutenschwager and tweeted by Andy Ngo. It shows the stunning moments in which a young security man with a semi-auto rifle is forced to defend his life by shooting multiple Black Lives Matter attackers who clearly intended to beat him to death.
This video is highly instructive, and we have analyzed it frame by frame, adding markings to illustrate what was actually taking place (see photos below).
We don’t yet know the full context of this shooting, but according to multiple reports, the young man with the rifle was running security to try to protect private property from the arson and looting attacks of the Black Lives Matter terrorists.
At one point, he was being chased down the street by multiple Black Lives Matter terrorists who were clearly intent on beating him to death. For a reason we don’t yet understand, he tripped and fell to the pavement. Once he was on the ground, BLM terrorists rushed in to try to kill him, which is of course what Black Lives Matter stands for: Burn, Loot and Murder. (Which is why Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, McDonald’s and hundreds of other corporations openly support BLM, because these corporations now hate America and provide financial support for mass violence.)
This is where the video provides a stunning account of what happens next.
Watch the video here, then see the frame-by-frame analysis below:
From a seated position on the pavement, this armed security man realizes he’s about to be overrun by three to four Black Lives Matter thugs who are going to beat him to death. He has less than a second to begin firing in self-defense, or he will be killed.
First, he gains control of his rifle and attains a seated position. Then, as the first BLM thug attempts to trample him, he fires the first shot into a BLM thug. It’s not clear whether this shot hits the thug or misses him, but it clearly convinces the attacker to flee as you will see in subsequent frames.
Now a second thug wielding a skateboard assaults the security man with the rifle, bashing him with the skateboard as he’s on the ground. Note that the previous attacking thug is now on the ground to the left, after being shot at.
At this point, it appears the security man with the rifle manages to get a shot off at the skateboard attacker, even after being bashed in the neck with the skateboard. This skateboard attacker is later seen motionless, laying in the streets, so it appears he was shot and possibly killed.
Here’s another photo of the skateboard attacker bashing the rifle man on the ground. Here, you can see that the rifle, which is now clearly an AR-15 with a red dot sight, is on the ground and in his right hand. This photo really captures the “fight for your life” lesson in all this. If the security man didn’t shoot these attackers, he would clearly have been beaten to death:
Now the security man with the rifle sees another approaching BLM thug who is attempting to assault him, so he manages to rise to a seated position with both his legs out in front of him. You can fight from this position, as we will soon see. Note the original attacking thug is now fleeing to the left, and the skateboard attacker is about to collapse on the street.
Although it’s very difficult to see from this angle, the seated security man with the rifle now fires a round into the attacker, blowing apart the attacker’s right arm. The “gray mist” you see in the air is actually the flesh, bone and blood of the attacker’s right arm. That attacker was captured in other videos (not shown here) with a “spaghetti arm” blown apart by close range rifle fire. He was reportedly carrying a hand gun as well. Importantly, having his right arm nearly blown off caused this attacker to reconsider his actions and begin to flee while screaming “Medic!” That’s the whole point of shooting these BLM terrorists, of course. It’s the only way to reach their decision processing centers in their feeble, zombified brains. They do not understand logic, reason or the rule of law. They do understand having their arms shot off, however. It might be the only thing they understand.
Now the security man with the rifle uses a stiff-arm technique with his right arm, while holding his rifle in his left arm, to regain his footing in an effort to extricate himself from this “kill zone” of BLM thugs. The man he just shot in the arm is now rethinking his actions and fleeing. The skateboard attacker has now collapsed onto the ground to the left. Other bystanders who might have been attackers are now keeping their distance and rethinking their actions, giving the security man with the rifle an opportunity to save himself and exit the scene.
In this final frame, we see the security man with the rifle, backing away with his rifle in the attack position, ready to engage other would-be attackers. He is slowly walking backwards while removing himself from the kill zone. Note the skateboard attacker is still apparently motionless on the street, and the BLM thug who got his arm nearly blown off is no longer present in the scene (he is now seeking urgent medical attention, which removed him from the fight). Also note that all the other would-be attackers are maintaining their distance.
We’ve blurred this out to prevent you from puking, but here’s a close-up of the arm injury of the BLM thug who was shot in the arm. Naturally, this sort of injury causes people to reconsider their actions. Technically, by the way, this was the result of a desperate, lurching shot by the security man with the rifle. You never aim for arms, you aim for the torso. The fact that this guy got shot in the arm — only the arm — is actually his lucky day. A better placed shot would have severed his spine or shot him through the heart.
What we can all learn from this
There are so many lessons to learn from this. Note carefully that the security man with the rifle wasn’t engaged in a “mass shooting” … he only shot specific attackers who were threatening his life. This important fact will, of course, be completely ignored by the fake news media.
Here are at least ten other lessons to take away from this:
#1) The police won’t protect you. You are on your own.
#2) Never stop fighting for your life. Shoot to stop your attackers or they will kill you.
#3) Black Lives Matter terrorists can only be communicated with by shooting them. They are immune to all other forms of logic, reason or civility. The only way to reach their brains is to cause them intense trauma or pain, interrupting their violent assaults and hate-filled rage.
#4) America’s streets are now a war zone where the rule of law doesn’t exist at all. No police were present in this scene until after the shootings took place.
#5) Even if you are thrown to the ground, you can still fire your rifle (or pistol) from the ground, and push attackers back with rifle fire so that you can regain your mobility and exit the kill zone.
#6) BLM terrorists will mob rush you in numbers, meaning you will need sufficient skills to shoot multiple attackers in rapid succession. As you can see from this video, had the security man with the rifle been just half a second slower, he would now be dead.
#7) If you don’t know how to clear a jam, reload your rifle or run an AR-15 without having to look at the controls, you’re screwed. Practice until it becomes second nature.
#8) Merely shooting at people, even if you don’t hit them, will cause other would-be attackers to reconsider their own attacks. In this case, had the security man with the rifle not begun shooting at his immediate attackers, he likely would have been mobbed with 5-6 other attackers and beaten to death.
#9) Don’t live in a Democrat-controlled city or a Democrat-controlled state. If you do, no one will come to help you, since Democrats are treasonous criminals who are abolishing police and refusing to deploy the National Guard to protect innocent citizens.
#10) Use ballistic ammo / hollow point ammo, because FMJ ammo doesn’t produce the trauma that’s necessary to cause attackers to rethink their attacks. Just punching small holes in people with 5.56 ball ammo doesn’t accomplish much. You need to achieve much more aggressive forms of tissue damage through the use of ballistic ammo / hollow point / hunting rounds.
#11) Around six seconds into the video, it also appears that the security man with the rifle is clearing a jam or a misfeed of some kind. He does this smoothly and just in time. This underscores the extreme importance of rifle drills, including changing magazines, clearing jams, carrying a secondary weapon and so on.
#12) Never try to chase down a guy with an AR-15. It’s stupid.
#13) Every American needs to own an AR-15 and know how to use it.
#14) Even when you are merely defending your life, you will probably be charged with murder if you live in a Democrat-controlled area. Sure enough, it appears this security man is now being charged with first degree murder, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. This is a fast-moving story, so things are still a bit hazy in terms of the aftermath, but we’ll bring you updates as they are available.
Get prepared for what’s coming. I am now posting daily podcasts (with some new videos coming) of preparedness and survival how-to content at PrepWithMike.com, which also lists in-stock survival items from the Health Ranger Store.
Get prepared now to fight and live… or surrender and die. Black Lives Matter terrorists are coming for you, and they want to kill you. And the left-wing media fully endorses it, by the way. On top of that, the police are not on your side, and if you defend yourself against BLM terrorists, you will likely be charged with attempted murder.
Hence the wisdom of just getting the F out of Democrat-run cities in the first place.
Hormone Therapy Doesn’t Increase Survival in Older Men With Early Prostate CancerBy Daniel J. DeNoon
July 8, 2008 — One in four elderly U.S. men with early prostate cancer undergoes hormone therapy — but it’s more likely to harm than help.
Surgery to remove the prostate — radical prostatectomy — is too risky for most men in their 70s and 80s. When such men are found to have early prostate cancer, they have three options.
They can wait and see whether this usually slow-moving cancer becomes a problem (called conservative therapy or watchful waiting). They can undergo radiation therapy and suffer its side effects. Or they can undergo androgen-deprivation therapy: hormonal drugs (Lupron, Viadur, Eligard, or Zoladex) or surgery (orchiectomy) that cut off production of male hormones.
In the U.S., older men often opt for stand-alone hormone therapy, even though there’s no proof that it really helps. Hormone therapy’s most obvious side effect is sexual dysfunction. Of greater concern are several recent studies linking androgen deprivation therapies to diabetes, heart disease, bone fractures, and reduced muscle mass.
Now a new study strongly suggests that hormone therapy offers older men no benefit to justify these serious risks.
Grace L. Lu-Yao, PhD, MPH, of the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, and colleagues collected data on more than 19,000 men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer at an average age of 77. None of the men underwent surgery or radiation treatment for early prostate cancer. Nearly 8,000 of the men opted for androgen deprivation therapy.
“Use of hormone therapy does not improve survival,” Lu-Yao tells WebMD. “The reason patients want this is they want something that will improve their quality of life or their survival. But hormone therapy has a detrimental effect on quality of life. And we cannot find any survival benefit for these men in their 70s with very early-stage cancer.”
Why have so many U.S. men undergone an unproven treatment that now seems to do more harm than good?
“It’s an American phenomenon,” Otis Brawley, MD, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, tells WebMD. “The problem is that if a U.S. man has early-stage prostate cancer, both patients and doctors culturally feel that you have to do something. The end result is a number of men who should get conservative therapy get some kind of intervention.”
Lu-Yao and Brawley suggest that these older men would have done just as well if their cancers had never been detected. Brawley notes that many of these men likely underwent continued prostate cancer screening with PSA tests. Others probably had possible prostate abnormalities detected by a urologist.
Regardless of how they got there, all these older men must have agreed to undergo prostate biopsies. And that may not have been the result of a fully informed decision, says Simon Hall, MD, head of urology at New York’s Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
“You have to have a discussion with an older man before he has a prostate biopsy. You have to ask, ‘Do you really want to open Pandora’s Box?'” Hall tells WebMD. “Most patients with localized prostate cancer are not going to die from their disease in the first 10 years anyway. It is a legitimate question whether to screen patients this old, and whether urologists should biopsy older patients based on just a knee-jerk reaction.”
Hall says there are very few men he would treat with hormone therapy alone.
“A lot of these older men are at low risk and don’t need any treatment at all,” he says. “It doesn’t seem hormone therapy would make a difference, so why put them through the significant side effects and the cost?”
All of the experts who spoke with WebMD noted that the current study findings do not apply to younger men who might receive androgen-deprivation therapy in combination with surgery or radiation. Such men may benefit from hormone therapy.
Lu-Yao and colleagues report their findings in the July 9 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association.WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD on July 08, 2008